Becoming PC By: Steve Huston

What happens when “PC” stands for Persecuting Christians rather than Politically Correct? Both the President of the United States and its Secretary of State (John Kerry) have done much to promote the homosexual agenda while, by and large, ignoring the persecution of Christians.

While President Obama has been proclaimed “The First Gay President” (Newsweek May 21, 2012) for his stance and help for the LGBT community, it’s clear that he’s not quite as concerned with the persecution of Christians.  Last August in Egypt, while Christians were being murdered, nuns were paraded through the streets, and churches were burned to the ground, the White House’s official statement was merely a joke.

When asked, “What’s the President’s red line in Egypt?” the White House’s official response was, “Well, I didn’t bring my red pen out with me today.”

While our current administration has said virtually nothing about the increasing persecution of Christians in countries around the world, it’s quick to embrace the LGBT agenda and chastise other nations who take a strong stand against homosexuality.

Recently the President of Nigeria signed a law criminalizing homosexual unions and gay clubs. The News Agency of Nigeria reports that entering into such civil unions could result in up to 14 years in prison.

President Goodluck Jonathan isn’t pushing this legislation through alone; the president of Nigeria’s senate urged him to sign this into law quickly.  Listen to his words.  “The earlier we sign it into law, the better. We have many shortcomings, we don’t want to add this one (same-sex marriage) to them.”

The US State Department has been quite outspoken against this new law which bans homosexual unions in Nigeria, yet has been silent on American citizen Pastor Saeed’s unlawful imprisonment in Iran. While Muslims in Northern Africa continue to persecute Christians Mr. Kerry is silent.  He says nothing of the 2 million Christians who have been killed in Sudan nor does he speak out against the 612 Christians who were killed in Nigeria last year.

Does the right to live a homosexual lifestyle outweigh the right to life itself?  Does America now value a person’s “human rights” over their basic right to life?  As we watch our government’s priorities play out internationally, it should concern us how they will play out at home.

The Bible is very clear about God’s view of homosexuality.  It’s not the unpardonable sin; but it is sin nonetheless.  It’s a sin like any other sexual sin; it can be repented of and forgiven.  However, Romans 1 tells us, it’s a sin which is different from other sexual sins; in that, it’s a judgment from God upon a nation or society which rejects Him as Creator, follows after the lie, and turns after its own passions. It leads to acceptance of more and more sin.

As a nation, we once looked at homosexuality as unacceptable behavior; now, those who promote homosexuality look at Christians as unacceptable. Now we’re called a type of “child-abuser” for teaching our children biblical truth. America has left her moorings and has set sail on a dangerous journey which will be to our own demise unless we return to that harbor which we once held dear– freedom under God.

http://americandecency.org/full_article.php?article_no=2159

Gay Blogger Tells Straight Christians: Don’t Confuse Your Best With God’s Best BY AUDREY BARRICK, CHRISTIAN POST REPORTER

A gay blogger has a piece of advice for Christians who tell him he should leave his homosexual lifestyle: don’t confuse your best with God’s best.

Azariah Southworth, who maintains that God affirms his homosexuality, recently wrote a blog post about lessons that “straight Christians must learn.” In it, he suggested that conservative Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin are mistaken in their interpretation of the Bible.

“[W]hen you tell me my life would be better as x,y,z; you’re minimizing my relationship with Christ. I have a different interpretation of a couple verses in the Bible,” he wrote. “I have reconciled my faith and sexual orientation. There has to be respect for my personal journey with God.”

Southworth, formerly host of “The Remix,” a popular Christian music program, has spoken openly about his negative experiences in the church, which include ex-gay counseling.

But despite what many preachers say in condemning homosexuality, he insists that God not only loves LGBT persons but also affirms them.

Since coming out in 2008, Southworth said he has received emails from old friends, strangers and past fellow church members – “people who are reaching out to me in hopes for me to ‘see the light’ and come out of this ‘lifestyle’ – for me to deny my identity.”

One email from Connie (whose last name was withheld) reads: “Jesus has soooo much better life for you than what you’re experiencing now. As long as you have breath, there is hope….”

Southworth responded on his blog, saying, “I just wish Connie could know the Jesus I know. The one that delivers us from fear, breaks the bondage of ignorance, the one that loves and affirms all people; regardless of their sexual orientation.

“I’m not hurt by Connie’s email because I know she means well. She has reached out to me time and time again, she truly cares and wants the best for me. However, Connie is confusing her best with God’s best. Connie has done what countless others have done and continue to do; they have made God nothing more than a mere reflection of themselves.”

The gay blogger, who outed young evangelical Jonathan Merritt in a controversial blog post in 2012, insisted that homosexuality is not an “abstract theological concept,” but rather “a piece of me.”

“I didn’t choose this anymore than you choose to be straight,” he wrote.

He also argued that there are “many interpretations” of the Bible and believes Christians should do their research on what the Scriptures say on homosexuality.

His statements are nothing new.

Among some of the more publicized arguments made by those who identify as gay Christians, Matthew Vines challenged the belief that homosexuality is a sin. An over hour-long video of Vines making his case garnered hundreds of thousands of views on YouTube.

But many Christians, including those who struggle with same-sex attraction, rejected Vines’ arguments.

You can read a three-part series on Vines here, here and here.

In the end, Southworth wants Christians to get to know him and have a “mutually respectful dialogue” about homosexuality.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/gay-blogger-tells-straight-christians-dont-confuse-your-best-with-gods-best-112544/

The Rabbi and the Duck Hunter

In the aftermath of the allegedly “homophobic” comments made by Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson, the man known as “America’s most famous rabbi” has offered a dissenting opinion. Between the rabbi and the duck hunter, who got it right?

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, dubbed “America’s most famous rabbi” byNewsweek magazine, is a close personal friend of mine and a frequent debating opponent on theological and social issues. It is his opinion that evangelicals in America have overstated their case against homosexuality, making it the scapegoat for many of our greatest social ills as well as exaggerating its sinfulness in the eyes of God.

Is he correct?

Writing in the <href=”#ixzz2ojnnqoic”>New York Observer on December 23rd, he claims that “No country in the world is more obsessed with homosexuality than America. And judging from the constant religious attacks against gays, you would think it’s the only sin in the entire Bible.”

As for it being called an “abomination” in the Torah, Rabbi Shmuley notes that the word “appears approximately 122 times in the Hebrew Bible, including eating nonkosher food (Deuteronomy 14:3) . . . and bringing a blemished sacrifice on God’s altar (Deuteronomy 17:1).”

He also notes that the word “abomination” can refer to moral sins like “envy, lying and gossip” in Proverbs, while in the New Testament the equivalent terms “seems to be implying that love of money is an abomination, which might give some of the televangelists flying in G5s pause before going after gays.”

Is there anything controversial in what he has written here in terms of the meaning of the word “abomination” in the Bible? Not to my mind, based on studying these texts for decades myself.

But his next claim is certainly controversial (and it is one that he and I have previously debated at length). He writes, “I am an orthodox Rabbi, and I freely acknowledge that the Bible clearly labels homosexuality a sin. However, it is not a moral sin but rather akin to the prohibition of lighting fire on the Sabbath or eating bread on Passover. It may violate the divine will, but there is nothing immoral about it.”

Homosexual practice is “not a moral sin”? Really?

He further explains that, “The essence of an ethical violation, as opposed to a religious infraction, is injury to an innocent party. This is not the case with two unattached adults entering a consensual relationship that is not based on deception or lies.”

Rabbi Shmuley has espoused this position for many years now, and it is an opinion that has been strongly renounced by other Orthodox rabbis and academics.

More importantly, it seems clear that the Torah itself is against his views, since: 1) Out of all the sins listed in the book of Leviticus, only homosexual practice is singled out as an abomination (sometimes among an aggregate list of abominations) and, as such, it is the only “abomination” punishable by death in Leviticus (see Lev 18:22; 20:13). Can the seriousness of this under ancient Israelite law be trivialized?

2) According to the Torah, when the surrounding nations engaged in this sin (along with sins of incest, adultery, bestiality, and sacrificing their children to idols) they incurred God’s wrath and were driven out of the land (see Lev 18:1-30). If these were not moral sins in God’s sight, why would he punish pagan nations for them? Only Israel was held accountable for ritual laws like abstaining from unclean foods.

3) It is the Torah which placed homosexual practice (not same-sex attractions but male-male sex) next to bestiality (see Lev 18:22-23), meaning that Rabbi Shmuley’s greater argument is with his own sacred Torah (which I believe he truly reveres), despite his protestation that, “Hardly a week goes by without some religious guy in America blathering on about how homosexuality is like bestiality.”

As for Phil Robertson’s comments, while crudely expressed, it seems that he was not likening homosexual practice to bestiality any more than he was likening heterosexual promiscuity to bestiality. He was, it appears, simply stating that once you violate God’s norms for marriage and sexuality, virtually anything goes. (To cite his now famous words, “Start with homosexual behavior, and just morph out from there—bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”)

And from a biblical standpoint, a man and a woman (not just two people) are uniquely suited for each other (see Gen 2:18-25, where the woman derives her name by being taken “out of the man,” and so their relationship truly reunites them as “one flesh”). This is why the one and only paradigm for marriage in the Bible is male-female based. It is also why the violation of that paradigm is so grave in God’s sight.

As for making homosexuality the scapegoat of our social and marital ills today, Rabbi Shmuley is certainly correct in pointing out the many sins that have plagued evangelical Christians (and others) for decades now, including rampant no-fault divorce, pornography, materialism and greed.

But what he fails to realize is that the reason we have made such an issue about homosexuality is not because of the act itself but rather because of the pervasive gay activism that came knocking at our doors – in our children’s schools, in our places of business, in the courts, in politics, in the media, in our communities, and even in our congregations – to the point that we can say without exaggeration that gay activism has become the principle threat to our freedoms of religions, speech, and conscience. (For more on this, see my 700 page study A Queer Thing Happened to America.)

And so, despite Rabbi Shmuley’s brilliance and his often astute cultural analyses, when it comes to the seriousness of homosexual practice, the learned and eloquent rabbi got it wrong and the duck hunter (not lacking in shrewdness himself) got it right.

 

Michael Brown Follow @twitterapi

Michael Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University. He is the author of 25 books, including Hyper-Grace: Exposing the Dangers of the Modern Grace Message, and he hosts the nationally syndicated, daily talk radio show, the Line of Fire. Follow him at AskDrBrown on Facebook or @drmichaellbrown on Twitter.

http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2013/12/27/the-rabbi-and-the-duck-hunter-n1768939/page/full

Differences between those who promote homosexuality and those who name the name of Christ …

Differences between those who promote homosexuality and those who name the name of Christ …

Several of the great differences between those who either are homosexuals and/or are promoters of the homosexual agenda, and those of us who name the name of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior are these: (1)  We believe that all of us are fallen creatures.  We are created in the image of God yet we each are marked by sin from the very beginning of our lives. (2) God‘s word refers to homosexuality as sin.   We believe that man has a tendency to do what is right in his own eyes as in the book of Judges.   God’s Word never changes for God is eternal, unchanging and holy. (3)We believe that if we confess our sins and receive Christ as our Savior that He will cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (4)  We believe that the Holy Spirit unites with our spirits and we are then “born again” and that His spirit indwells us and works within us drawing us to Himself and abiding with us; that little by little we are increasingly conformed to His image – exhibiting more and more the likeness of Jesus Christ. (5) God’s word says to put off the old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness. Eph. 4:22-24 Listen to Bill Johnson on Sirius XM Family Talk- A Decency Minute http://www.americandecency.org/full_article.php?article_no=1968

The New Normal’s sly indoctrination

The New Normal’s sly indoctrination

Tuesday night NBC aired the season finale of “The New Normal.”   Since its premier last fall, “The New Normal” has always been a propaganda-piece in the guise of a sitcom.  However, in the hour-long season finale creator/producer Ryan Murphy pulled out all the stops to proselytize viewers into accepting the debased gay agenda as “normal.” Promote gay marriage?  Check. Champion homosexual parenting?  Check. Undermine the church and mock God and His righteousness?  Double check. Take Action!  Click here to send a message to the advertisers empowering the promotion of the gay agenda on “The New Normal.”  (See below for a list of sponsors.) The first half hour of the show centered on the gay men planning their “marriage” ceremony with lovey-dovey scenes of the two men kissing and in bed together interspersed throughout the show.  The mothers of the “grooms” (one Catholic and one Jewish) are shown to be supportive and accepting – both moms walking their sons down the aisle. At one point when one of the moms jokingly says, “Are you even sure you’re both gay?”  Her son, Brian, making reference to a gay sex act, replies:  “Well if we’re not, we did something really weird last night.” Throughout the series, “Nana,” the token conservative Christian, has of course been depicted as a hate-filled, bigoted, homophobe.  Amazingly, however, she has now “come to her senses” and is leaving her moral standards behind.   Nana is now having sex with a much younger man – which she describes as “booty calls” – with no interest in getting married.  And in the final episode, “homophobe” Nana apologizes for her past “offenses” and says about her old self, “If you would have told me then that I’d be accepting the invitation to a wedding of two guys, I’d have hung myself.”  She goes on to toast the homosexual couple:  “Here’s to Brian and David – the happiest couple I know!” Several times throughout the series Brian, who was raised Catholic, meets with his priest who not only accepts Brian’s homosexuality, but also encourages him to fight for “equality.”  In this episode, the two men ask the priest to perform their “marriage” ceremony.  The priest indicates he would like to, but the ‘behind-the-times’ church won’t allow him to.  However, in the end the priest tosses aside the teachings of The Bible and of the Catholic Church, and shows up to marry them.  He dresses in ‘civilian’ clothes and claims that since he’s not wearing his collar that it’s okay to perform the sacrament of marriage for two men.  He tells Brian:  “I once told you to fight for change, but I can’t ask you to do something that I’m not prepared to do myself.  So, God help me, here we go.” As the priest concludes the ceremony he ends with: “With the power invested in me as a child of God, I now pronounce you – a family!”  He then looks to the sky and sarcastically adds, “No lightning bolts, what do you know.” Ryan Murphy should be very thankful that the Lord God, holy and righteous, is also – as it says in Nehemiah 9:17 – “ready to pardon, gracious and merciful, slow to anger, abundant in kindness …” However, God will not be mocked.  There will be an end to His patience. “Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?  But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,”  (Romans 2:4-5) This episode also featured the birth of the baby that a surrogate has been carrying for the homosexual men.  The scene is played out oh-so-sweetly as the two teary-eyed men take turns cuddling the newborn baby boy – while the surrogate mother smiles upon the scene with obviously no qualms about giving up this baby she’s carried for nine months.  A baby who will be deprived of a real mother. And that is at the crux of ‘Heather having two mommies or having two daddies’ – but not one of each.  Children deprived of God’s design of a father and a mother and the unique and irreplaceable qualities each brings to a child’s life. Millions in our culture have listened to the seed of doubt which was also whispered in Eve’s ear “has God really said?” and have made themselves the determiner of what makes a ‘family.’  As a university professor in Florida recently demanded his students stomp on the written name of Jesus, so is biblical marriage and the God-designed family unit being stomped upon by today’s secular elites. I recently read an article written by a man who himself is, sadly, a homosexual – yet is still opposed to same-sex marriage and parenting.  He states the concern about our culture’s social engineering of marriage and family: “Same-sex marriage will not expand rights and freedoms in our nation. It will not redefine marriage. It will undefine it. This isn’t the first time our society has undefined marriage. No-fault divorce, instituted all across our country, sounded like a good idea at the time. Its unintended consequence was that it changed forever the definition of marriage from a permanent relationship between spouses to a temporary one. Sadly, children became collateral damage in the selfish pursuits of adults. Same-sex marriage will do the same, depriving children of their right to either a mom or a dad. This is not a small deal. Children are being reduced to chattel-like sources of fulfillment. On one side, their family tree consists not of ancestors, but of a small army of anonymous surrogates, donors, and attorneys who pinch-hit for the absent gender in genderless marriages. Gays and lesbians demand that they have a “right” to have children to complete their sense of personal fulfillment, and in so doing, are trumping the right that children have to both a mother and a father—a right that same-sex marriage tramples over.(emphasis added) Same-sex marriage will undefine marriage and unravel it, and in so doing, it will undefine children. It will ultimately lead to undefining humanity. This is neither “progressive” nor “conservative” legislation. It is “regressive” legislation. Nowhere on any marriage license application in any state are the applicants asked, “Do you love each other?” Yet this is the basis on which same-sex marriage proponents seek to change our laws. Is the state really in the business of celebrating our romantic lives?” The mantra I heard repeatedly in Minnesota was that “marriage is about love, commitment, and responsibility.” But these three things are not the state’s interests in marriage. Marriage, from the state’s perspective, is about kids. Period. That’s the reason the institution exists. We should tremble at and fear the notion of undoing it.  http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/03/9622/ And as “The New Normal” seeks to undermine biblical marriage and family, we must be even more vocal and diligent in opposing the sly indoctrination of a sitcom that uses ridicule to seek to shut us up. The good news is, that because of mediocre ratings, NBC has not yet announced whether or not “The New Normal” will be renewed next season.  Tuesday’s season finale of “The New Normal” drew 4.97 million viewers for the first half hour and lost 1.4 million viewers during the second half, with just 3.56 million viewers tuning in for the conclusion. When the “The New Normal” hasn’t had a strong lead-in show – as it did Tuesday night with “The Voice” – the ratings have been a dismal average of 2.86 million.  (For comparison, the viewership of “The Voice” was 13.61 million – showing that 8.6 million NBC viewers changed the channel when “The New Normal” came on.  Also of interest, Sunday night’s finale of “The Bible” miniseries on cable TV’s The History Channel drew 11.7 million viewers!)  That in itself is an encouragement – when a relatively obscure cable channel that millions of Americans don’t even have access to – draws nearly three times more viewers than the finale of “The New Normal.” Of course we know the battle will not be over even if “The New Normal” is cancelled.  Another will rise to take its place.  We are the David in the fight against the Goliaths of our culture. However, as David did, we also come in the name of the Lord of hosts, whom Ryan Murphy, NBC, and an army of secular elites have defied. May we run to the battle to boldly oppose the giants of our day! Keep the pressure on the sponsors of “The New Normal” which will send a message to NBC that this show should not be renewed for next season. Take Action!  Click here to send an email to the advertisers empowering the promotion of the gay agenda on “The New Normal.”  (See below for a list of sponsors.) Also, please forward this to your family and friends, urging them to also take a stand. Sponsors of “The New Normal” McDonald’s Campbell’s soup Subway Wal-Mart Target Maybelline/L’Oreal Chevrolet – General Motors Ford Sprint State Farm Insurance Burlington Coat Factory Nissan Frontline Plus Fresh Step cat litter – Clorox Co. Ragu pasta sauce – Unilever Clear Scalp – Unilever Red’s Apple Ale Wells Fargo T-Mobile Subaru http://americandecency.org/full_article.php?article_no=1822

Marriage is What it is

“It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is,” said the smooth-talking, skirt-chasing, totally busted philanderer.

“Well, no, Bill,” replied Congress. “Actually, things just ‘is’ what they is.”

Here’s what marriage is: The God-ordained, lifelong, covenantal union between man and wife, designed to provide men, women and children optimal stability and overall well-being. Marriage is that biologically, spiritually and morally centered institution calculated to ensure responsible procreation and perpetuate the human race. Marriage – real marriage – represents the fundamental cornerstone of any healthy society (any society that hopes to survive, at least).

Here’s what marriage is not: Anything else.

In short, marriage is what it is.

That our nation has fallen so far, so fast in its embrace of empty relativism makes the head swim. It’s at once perplexing and heartbreaking that we have a U.S. Supreme Court seriously considering inventing a newfangled “right” to that chicane aberration tagged “same-sex marriage.” This is true particularly when one considers that the defining behaviors central to “gay marriage” were, for hundreds of years and for obvious reasons, legally and properly classified as “crimes against nature.” Though our postmodern zeitgeist may have changed, objective reality has not.

Indeed, American culture, while casting aside that which is just, moral and true, has, instead, taken-up that which is unjust, immoral and false. This abject rejection of absolute truth provides compelling evidence that the good ‘ol USA – the greatest nation on earth – is on the fast track to becoming “the late, great USA.”

So-called “gay marriage” is a counterfeit – a mockery of legitimate marriage. It’s like taking a rotten apple, spray-painting it orange, and then calling it an orange. “Same-sex marriage” is no more real marriage then a rotten apple is an orange. It’s mock marriage.

One of the best appraisals I’ve read on marriage was presented in 2003 to the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI). Among other things, the future pontiff explicitly recognized the empirical fact that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” Following are excerpts from his treatise titled “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons”:

The Church’s teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all the major cultures of the world. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose. No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman … in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives. … 

In the first place, man, the image of God, was created “male and female” (Gen 1:27). Men and women are equal as persons and complementary as male and female. Sexuality is something that pertains to the physical-biological realm and has also been raised to a new level – the personal level – where nature and spirit are united. …

There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts “close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

 

To be sure, “marriage equality” already exists. It is, quite simply, the self-evident truth that both husband and wife are co-equal, indispensable partners essential to the formulation of a marriage covenant. While moral relativists clamor for their propagandist version of “marriage equality,” the rest of us live in marriage reality.

Every single mentally competent adult enjoys the right to marry within exactly the same parameters required by natural law. Thus, “equal protection under the law” is afforded to all. As long as your spouse-to-be is 1) not too closely related, 2) of legal age, 3) only one person, 4) of the opposite sex and 5) a biped of the genus homo-sapien – then you’re golden. Marry away.

If you remove one requirement – in this case, the binary male-female prerequisite – then there is no justification, logical or legal, for not removing all requirements. If we yank one foundational brick from the marriage wall, then, as in the days of Jericho, the whole danged thing comes a-tumblin’. That is to say, if the Supreme Court rolls out “gay marriage,” then legalized polygamy, incestuous marriage and heaven-knows-what-else must inevitably follow.

Even still, the left loves to suggest that “gay marriage” supporters are “on the right side of history.” This is utter nonsense. Natural marriage has, for all of history, been on the “right side of history;” and so it shall remain.

Another rotten apples-to-oranges false equivalency is to claim that precluding “gay marriage” is akin to banning interracial marriage. Again, this is nonsense. Liberals, in making their case for the former, are quick to cite Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court case that invalidated anti-miscegenation laws.

By comparing “gay marriage” to interracial marriage, leftists endeavor to draw a parallel where none exists. The Loving Court both recognized and affirmed the fundamental man-woman nature of marriage while simply – and rightly so – removing arbitrary and truly discriminatory racial barriers. While Loving left the institution of natural marriage fully intact, a pro-”gay marriage” ruling by the High Court would thoroughly deconstruct it.

In sum, proponents of counterfeit “gay marriage” pretend that normalcy, biology, history, morality and sanity are all irrelevant to the debate. They are not. As counterfeit money devalues the dollar, counterfeit “gay marriage” devalues the institution of legitimate marriage.

Scripture reminds us that, “there is nothing new under the sun.” Ultimately, the oxymoronic notion of “same-sex marriage” is nothing new. It’s both rooted in man’s age-old rebellion against God and ancient pagan sexual morality.

So, I’ll leave you with this fundamental question: Since God undeniably designed marriage to be the exclusive union of man and wife – who, or what, then, do you suppose manufactured the absurd notion of “same-sex marriage?”

I think the answer is pretty clear.

Matt Barber

Matt Barber is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He is Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action and serves as Associate Dean and Adjunct Assistant Professor of Law at Liberty University School of law. In addition to his law degree, Matt holds a Master of Arts in Public Policy from Regent University.

http://townhall.com/columnists/mattbarber/2013/04/01/marriage-is-what-it-is-n1553971/page/full/

The result of impurity to our conscience

We are living in a culture now where we are inundated by indecency, pornography and obscenity in advertisements, billboards, television, computer, emails, etc..

It can and assuredly is doing far more damage than we can even begin to fathom.

Sadly, as we opened up the flood gates so long ago by allowing increasing levels of trash over the airwaves, vast numbers of Americans now not only tolerate but have found acceptable that which is detestable in the sight of a Holy, Righteous God.

I’m not telling you anything that many of you don’t already know. However, take this as an important reminder!   You are not screwy, insane or antiquated as you oppose homosexuality, lesbianism, transgenderism, same sex marriage, sodomy because God’s Word says that the above is detestable in His sight.

Nevertheless, in the months ahead, we may find the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that same-sex marriage is permitted in America plummeting  our nation even further downward toward the judgment of the Creator God as a handful of unelected men and women determine that the politically correct crowd says its so.

If that occurs, their decision  won’t make it right as the natural law which they swore to uphold in the Constitution will not have  changed.  Natural law IS God’s law and God’s law does not change as God does NOT change.

========================================================

Here are a couple of Biblical principles worth heeding regarding impurity to our conscience.

(1)  God’s will is that we increase the scope of our moral consciousness so that we are aware when we offend God and others.

My comment:  That’s why it is important to be people that are in God’s Word and under robust preaching of the word of God, meditating upon His word and in prayer – that we will increase the scope of our moral conscience not let it shrink with the changing thoughts of godless men and women.

(2)  But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.  Hebrews 5:14

My comment: Solid food means not being babies that can only handle milk.  Some are at such baby levels in terms of being able to discern good from evil because their “food” is feeding from a steady dose of mindless, degrading entertainment choices, ie. “All American Dad”, “Family Guy” “The New Normal” and the like.

Our moral consciousness decreased by impurity

(1)  When we allow moral impurity to exist in our lives, it soon becomes justified by our mind and conscience.  At this point, it doesn’t bother our conscience.

(2)  The tragedy to our relationships with both God and others is that in decreasing our moral consciousness in one area, we become unaware of how we are offending in many other areas—both by the things we do and especially by those things we fail to do and say.

Give thought to this over the weekend.  Your God (whether you even acknowledge Him or not) has much more in mind for all of us than parking ourselves in front of silly nothingness that feeds our FLESH while diminishing, degrading, and ultimately destroying our souls.

Stay in touch – including those who I angered by this short email.  I don’t mean to irritate but there is so much at stake in the war for our very own sanity, consciences, relationships, family and spirituality.

The following verse is one that I believe we all would do well to consider, memorize and meditate upon.

Ezekiel 22:26: Her priests have done violence to my law and have profaned my holy things. They have made no distinction between the holy and the common, neither have they taught the difference between the unclean and the clean, and they have disregarded my Sabbaths, so that I am profaned among them.

http://americandecency.org/full_article.php?article_no=1747

What Is Marriage and What Is It Not? By Eric Metaxas , Christian Post Guest Columnist

For millennia, all societies have viewed marriage as an exclusively heterosexual club. But in the last few years, more and more people are saying it’s time to open the marriage door to homosexuals. After all, we are told, if marriage is all about love and mutual commitment, gay people can do that at least as well as straights – who have thoroughly messed up the institution in any event. And besides, it would be discriminatory to deny homosexuals the right to marry, no?

But according to authors of a great new book, we’re on the wrong track already if the marriage debate gets bogged down in the issues of love or rights, because marriage is founded on something far deeper. The book is called What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense, and it’s written by Sherif Girgis, Ryan Anderson, and my friend Princeton professor Robby George. “What we have come to call the gay marriage debate,” these three scholars write, “is not directly about homosexuality, but about marriage. It’s not about whom to let marry, but about what marriage is.”

Girgis, Anderson, and George say that on the one side is the traditional view, which they label the conjugal view. “The conjugal view of marriage has long informed the law – along with the literature, art, philosophy, religion, and social practice – of our civilization,” the authors write. “It is a vision of marriage as a bodily as well as an emotional and spiritual bond, distinguished thus by its comprehensiveness, which is, like all love, effusive: flowing out into the wide sharing of family life and ahead to lifelong fidelity.”

On the other side, they say, is what they call the revisionist view. They write, “It is a vision of marriage as, in essence, a loving emotional bond, one distinguished by its intensity – a bond that needn’t point beyond the partners, in which fidelity is ultimately subject to one’s own desires. In marriage, so understood, partners seek emotional fulfillment, and remain as long as they can find it.”

Friends, homosexuality is not mentioned in the authors’ description of the revisionist view of marriage, nor is it necessary. In fact, many heterosexual couples define their marriages exactly this way, summarized as, “as long as we both shall love.” The argument is not with homosexuality, per se, but with a misunderstanding of marriage that makes supposed gay matrimony just the next step in civil rights.

The stakes for our society are high. “The health and order of society,” the authors write, “depend on the rearing of healthy, happy, and well-integrated children. That is why law, though it may take no notice of ordinary friendships, should recognize and support marriages.”

Gay-rights advocates claim that heterosexual marriage would not be harmed if gay marriage were legalized. But that’s not so. “What Is Marriage?” meticulously
details some of the critical social goods at risk if we go down the revisionist marriage road – gay or straight: real marital fulfillment, spousal well-being, child well-being, friendship, religious liberty, and limited government. These are not trivial matters! The book tells us why in masterful detail.

Of course, the book also makes us think about our own marriages: Are they other-directed and God-directed, or are they merely self-directed? It’s fair to ask, are we part of the problem, or the solution?

This book, What Is Marriage?, makes an argument, but it’s not argumentative. Instead, it is philosophical, reasoned, and fair. It provides the kind of intellectual energy we need when so many involved in the marriage debate – on both sides – are busy producing more heat than light. Please pick up a copy at the Colson Center Bookstore at BreakPoint.org.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/what-is-marriage-and-what-is-it-not-89974/#ap91uARXgtmeEgb6.99

“Gay Sin” Survey Reveals We’re Playing God on Moral Questions

I’m always on the hunt for positive news, there being such consistent media focus on the bad stuff. Most days, headlines essentially read, “Handbasket full; hell in sight.”

So a recent headline caught my eye because of its positive tone: “Survey: Big drop in those who say being gay’s a sin.” According to Lifeway Research, a division of Lifeway Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention, significantly fewer Americans defined homosexual behavior as sinful in 2012 than in 2011.

As reported at lifeway.com:

“A November 2012 survey of adults in the United States found 37 percent affirm a belief that homosexual behavior is a sin — a statistically significant change from a September 2011 Lifeway Research survey asking the same question. At that time, 44 percent answered, ‘Yes.’”

In contrast, the percentage of Americans who do not believe homosexuality is a sin barely changed over the same period — 43 percent in September 2011 and 45 percent in November 2012. Those unsure of what they believe jumped from 4 percent to seventeen percent.

Ed Stetzer, president of Lifeway Research, attributed this change in large measure to President Obama’s “evolution” on gay marriage in the year preceding his re-election.

“The president’s evolution on homosexuality probably impacted the evolution of cultural values — there is a real and substantive shift, surprisingly large for a one-year time frame,” Mr. Stetzer said.

Proving, if nothing else, that a statistically significant number of Americans may, in fact, believe Mr. Obama is the messiah.

Joking.

Proving that Americans don’t know what sin is and think the concept is fluid, or defined by their personal comfort with certain behaviors, or negotiable because their cousin is gay and he’s a great guy and his partner is super nice so it can’t possibly be sinful or wrong to be gay.

And therein lies the problem with the “gay sin” survey or any survey that measures what we believe about sin.

In fact, Lifeway’s survey may tell us more about our nation’s understanding of morality than it does about our cultural evolution on homosexuality. If sins can now be defined and redefined based on society’s current opinion, then moral relativism has certainly become our new norm.

And a dangerous one, according to Rev. Charles Irvin, senior priest of the diocese of Lansing, Mich., and the founding editor of Faith Magazine, the largest and fastest growing Catholic publication in America, because it means as a society, we’re comfortable playing God and deciding our own moral imperatives.

“What we see is the manifestation of the Imperial Self,” Father Irvin says. “Essentially, this survey reveals that people think, ‘I decide what is real and what is not, what is right and what is wrong, what is true and what is not.’”

If Americans clearly have become more comfortable with homosexuality, it’s not because homosexual behavior is any less sinful than it ever was, but rather our culture has promoted it as natural and therefore acceptable.

As with all surveys, the wording makes a difference in the result. If I had participated and been asked if it’s a sin to “be gay,” I would also have said no. “Being gay” is no more sinful than being straight; it’s sex outside of God’s definition of marriage that matters.

Father Irvin summarizes the crux of the question: “The issue over gay marriage does not deal with who is a good person or who is bad, it is rather a question of what is good behavior and what is bad behavior, not simply for the actors themselves but for society as a whole. Redefining sin according to our desires will never benefit society.”

Marybeth Hicks

Marybeth Hicks is the author of Don’t Let the Kids Drink the Kool-Aid: Confronting the Left’s Assault on Our Families, Faith, and Freedom (Regnery Publishers, 2011).

https://lacykitkat.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post

Tozer Devotional-The Discipline of Personal Bible Study

The Discipline of Personal Bible Study

The boast that the Bible is the world’s best seller sounds a little hollow when the character and purpose of the Bible are understood.

It is not how many Bibles are sold that counts, nor even how many people read them; what matters is how many actually believe what they read and surrender themselves in faith to live by the truth. Short of this the Bible can have no real value for any of us.

A great deal is said, and rightly said, about the superiority of the Bible as literature. So beautiful are the words of prophet and psalmist, as well as those of our Lord and His apostles, that they can scarcely be made less than beautiful, even by the clumsiest translator. Speaking any word here in praise of the beauty of the Authorized Version (the one usually selected to be ”read as literature”) would be to gild the lily or set a candle to the sun, so I refrain. But to study the Scriptures for their literary beauty alone is to miss the whole purpose for which they were written.

http://www.cmalliance.org/devotions/tozer?id=770